Pennsylvania Vindication Edition

[David Thomson]

"How does the narrative change if Obama wins both Indiana and N.C. in two weeks?"

The big question is just how many non-Ivy league whites in Indiana and North Carolina will vote for Obama. This contest between Hillary and "Barry" revolves around race---and don't let anyone con you into believing something different. A rational white person should not vote for Obama. He is out to damage them. One must never forget that Obama freely chose to join a black power church. He is a race card opportunist.

[jimM47]

Why isn't the right focusing on the more valid question?: Um... because it isn't the more valid question.

To ascribe people's sincerely held beliefs to bitterness over the economy, ignoring the reasons they give for holding those beliefs, is not just disrespectful and condescending, but naive in a way the questions Obama's ability to understand and empathize with people. Other politicians are elitist and condescending too, but the entire point of Obama is that he is a "change" from other politicians — he supposedly understands and respects you even when he disagrees with you.

We wouldn't be talking so much about this if Hillary or Edwards had said that, since the fact that they are elitist and condescending is part of their appeal — they condescend to the people democrats don't like and their policies are framed as shifting decision-making to government elites. The fact that Obama is different is the largest part of his appeal. If he isn't really different, then he has a problem.

[Nate]

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/104...0&out=00:06:46

Bob, I thought we had determined that "Bittergate" was the wrong name to use.

[RJB]

Whatfur,
I didn't make my point well, apparently. I was entering the game of trying to interpret what Obama really meant by his comments. I meant that these things they cling to are, in fact, real to them. Their religious faith is real, their enjoyment of hunting and belief that gun ownership is their right is real, etc. I think, and I believe that Obama meant, that since neither party has benefited them economically that they have grown cynical about both parties, they don't believe promises that either party makes regarding their economic welfare, and they are mad about the general state of affairs, but will vote for the one party which does defend those other values which are important to them, values they cling to now just as they have for their entire lives.

They have reason to believe that the Democrats will restrict gun ownership, will allow gay marriage, will keep prayer out of schools, etc. The party which fights their fight on these issues, as they see it, is the Republican Party. and Obama said what he said while talking about how to approach these people based on how they feel but he can hardly campaign in their backyard by agreeing with what I just said so he had to explain his comment in other ways.

[Wonderment]

Alas, promises.

You also promised to keep Mickey down to 30 minutes per appearance.

Also, Bob, when you assault progressive sensibilitites with the trifecta of Frum, Lake and Mickey on three successive days (aaaaaaaaaargh!), please don't tell me about your depression.

Thank you, however, for the perfect description of McCain as trigger-happy militarist with a nasty temper, and for noting that the crazy-old-man-with-a-shitload-of-nukes bluff (a la Nixon) is more than a little out-of-touch with current geopolitics.

RJB,

Yes, you have added the correct amount of clarity and even logic. I would even go so far as to agree with you except for a number of things that make your explanation counter-intuitive. Starting out with his own explanation later where he gave a half-baked apology and twisted it into making it about other people's misinterpretation. Now, if right then he inserted your explanation it might have worked...but instead he pointed a finger at others for calling his comments demeaning to religion and he pointed a finger at others for calling his comments demeaning to hunters. While then saying those who did were politicizing it. Some may have been, but... sorry... most simply took it as him saying they were bitter and ignorant and were offended ...not politicizing it.

Add to that the other comment where he said something about them having trouble listening to a 40-something black man. What was that suppose to imply?

Add to that the high-brow audience he chose to utter the comments to, chuckling and him chuckling with them...well...I am pretty sure the audience took him to be saying they were bitter and ignorant too. Don't you?

[bkjazfan]

It appears Obama couldn't take the hits whether they were legit or not!

John

[deecue]

Here is one cheering possibilty for Obama supporters (or Democrats in general). It seems in most primaries as of late that last minute deciders always pull the lever in large part for Hillary, or at least I have heard this stated several times in a couple different elections (sorry, I'm lazy and just want to throw it out there). This may be a function of the continually fouled up exit polling, or this may actually reflect a real undecided voter, who pulls toward Hillary out of being more comfortable with the more familiar candidate, or break along age demographics in a way that, say, Glenn Loury admitted breaking for Hillary in his last diavlog. In the general, if Obama wins, these late breaking voters would not necessarily be likely to switch to McCain, but would in fact seem to be Obama's to lose; that being said, I'm not really sure what percentage of the voting pool this reflects.

[bkjazfan]

Dick Morris today has an article using some convoluted logic which puts Obama in the catbird seat for the democratic nomination for president. It sounded reasonable to me. However, didn't he earlier write a book on how Hilary had a lock on the presidency?

John

[Tao Jones]

Is back-paddling and apologizing a wise thing to do politically? I prefer Obama's strategy of clarifying the intent of his statements and standing tall. Kinda like the John Wayne trait: even when he's wrong, he's right.

Speaking of eating shit, kudos to Mickey for his 10-point win prediction. Kaus was unusually on point for most of the diavlog.

[piscivorous]

This is the work of Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse

And yes friends, it was a blow out. When you lose 62% of the white vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 70% of the Catholic vote, that is a blowout. When you lose 57% of the Jewish vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 58% of churchgoers, that is a blowout. When you lose 54% of workers making less than $50,000 a year (and win only those making less than $15,000 and more than $150,000), that’s a blowout. When you lose 63% of seniors, that’s a blowout. When you outspend your opponent by 3-1 and still lose by 10 points, that’s a blowout.

The blow out link is to the exit polling data from which Mr Moran got the above figures.

[Magic Flea]

http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs...6&out=00:55:10

According to the results I'm looking at, it's actually a difference of about 9.31. But Bob, if you're looking at results that round off, how do two candidates split 100 percent and get a spread of nine? 54-46=8. 55-45=10.

As a follow up, since the final difference *is* 9 and not 10, how does the perceptions game play out differently as opposed to a result in which she genuinely broke double digits?

[deebee]

I think that the double digit that truly counts right now is the $10,000,000 that Hillary raised in less than 24 hours that allows her to soldier on.

[deebee]

Al Gore has always been my preferred nomination choice and I would enthusiastically support him if by some miracle he would agree to run. This idea keeps popping up as outlined in the following article:

http://w
ww.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/messy_democratic_race_means_it.html

[jabbasi]

I think the short hand of Obama's "bitter" comments = the Thomas Frank "What's the matter with Kansas" argument is misleading. And Mickey seems to be one of the worst offenders in this regard. Just to clarify, I would characterize (akin to Mickey) the popular definition of the WTMWK argument as poor white people (as dupes) are tricked by Republicans into voting against their economic interests by appeals to values. Obama talked about poor people, their economic interests, and voting based upon appeals to values - but Obama seemed to remove the duped part by saying they weren't tricked into voting against there economic interests because there was no vote for their economic interests (Democrat or Republican). He was saying they were being rational in being bitter, and rational in siding with people who at least pay respect to their values. I agree with Mickey that grouping things he supposedly believes are positive (like religion) with things that he clearly views as negative (like racism or anti-immigrant sentiment) seems to (but not necessarilly as a matter of logic) cast aspersion on the supposedly innocuos/positive things. However, Mickey is driving his rhetorical bus on the fuel of this "false consciousness = condecension = gross violation of social equality" argument, and the unique twist of Obama's "bitter" remarks to the WTMWK argument is that people are acting rationality in voting their values, not being duped by false consciousness (though Obama's position does seem to be Vulgar Marxist, in the ordinal sense, to the extent that Obama seems to imply that these values voters could be won over with a genuine economic appeal)

[piscivorous]

Amanda Cox, of The New York Times takes a graphical look at the county by county breakdowns in the Democratic primaries Decision Tree: The Obama Clinton Divide. This link goes not to the NY Times but to a site that has managed to sharpen the graphic. The article above does contain a link to the original NY times graphic.

[osmium]

that is really cool. thanks for posting it. i think there has to be an occam's razor to apply, that follows an elegant logical path rather than a slightly tortuous one. what is the fundamental clinton/obama divide? it seems pretty rock solid, so maybe it's an important one.

by looking at a map of the country, you can really already tell who's going to win what.

[bobnmickeyfan]

Bob.

The discussions you get into with Mickey invariably show great initial promise. This initial promise goes down the toilet when it's Mickey's turn to talk... NOT because he's a dolt - which he is not - but because of your continual interruptions. Mickey waits patiently for you to complete your generally long, wide-ranging thought, but then the minute he opens his mouth, you interrupt him by focusing in on one particular specific phrase that he says in the first 10 seconds of his response (a phrase that invariably is tangential to his larger point), and begin arguing specifics, rather than letting him lay out his own thoughts... so that you two can THEN argue.

Which is why it cracked me up all the more when you yelled at Mickey for interrupting you in this diavlog.

I know you're a liberal & have come to grips with that. Please try to learn to not argue like one.

[January]

Excellent points regarding whites in key swing states. Now, can some one tell me how Clinton wins the general if the young people and most African-Americans stay home? As all Bloggingheads fans must have discovered by now, no Democrat since Johnson has taken more than 46% of the white vote. For nearly 50 years, Dem presidential hopefuls have had to count on non-white groups to make up the difference in key states. If the Dem party is going to have to choose which group to scorn, maybe they should pick the one that is going to go for John McCain anyway.

And for an interesting historical take on Ohio and Pennsylvania, read David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed. Whites in Ohio and Penn descend mainly from what Americans call 'Scots-Irish', in other words, militaristic clans that value loyalty over learning, isolation over engagement. I'm not personally offended that this group exists, by I abhor an electoral system that gives it so much power.

[look]

Originally Posted by January

Now, can some one tell me how Clinton wins the general if the young people and most African-Americans stay home?

Beg Barack to run with her. He could cut a pretty sweet deal, beginning with a guarantee that his profile would be kept higher than Bill's. He'd only be about 54 if she made it to a second term, which is doubtful.

[Loren Michael]

I think the simple answer is, Pennsylvania is the second oldest state. Old people surrounded by old people is almost certainly going to provide an echo-chamber effect. This reverberating "get off my lawn" echo, combined with the other demographic disadvantages of the region (from Obama's perspective) make it spectacularly difficult for Obama to win.

I would say that the ray of light is that this probably is not going to (necessarily) hold true in the general, as the "Clinton is mathematically dead in the water" notion hasn't penetrated very well into the mind(s?) of the general voting public, and she's still viewed as a safe and viable Democratic alternative to the old media/low-info Boomers and their elders. Once (if?) she's defeated in a visible and final way, a lack of seemingly strong and viable Democratic alternatives will probably push Clinton voters towards Obama.

[Dudley Smith]

Guys, just want to say great work. I am a conservative-leaning independent that rarely listens to any liberal political discussion or analysis, but I have found you two to be informative, worthwhile and entertaining. Now I never miss a podcast of one of your diavlogs. Keep up the great work.

And I think the line Bob was looking for to describe Mickey was:

"Mickey Kaus is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."